How much money was awarded in case 5227692?

Rent Arrears: $398.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227692?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12016813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5227692?

Rent Arrears: $398.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227692?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12016813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5227692 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5227692 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227692 — net $398.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$398.57	Rent arrears
Net award	$398.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$398.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited - As Agent For Sc Investments Ltd $398.57 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 June 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy under two separate grounds.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this case, I find the landlord has not served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The third notice dated 14 May 2025 does not inform the tenant of his right to challenge the notice.

The grounds for termination of the tenancy have not been established and the application for termination under the recidivist rent arrears provisions is dismissed.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant had breached their obligations by failing to pay rent in full and on time.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 March 2025, informing the tenant that he was in arrears for rent in the sum of $199.29, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because; The amount of rent arrears on the day of this hearing is $398.57. The tenant expressed some uncertainty of the amount, but indicated that he would be able to pay the arrears within 48 hours of the hearing and the next rent payment would be made before the end of the week. Termination of the tenancy would be a disproportionate response to the level of arrears. The application of termination is dismissed.

The appropriate application by the landlord in the circumstances in the circumstances of this case was under section 55(1)(aa) RTA. That application has been dismissed by the Tribunal as the notices served on the tenant were not valid. The tenant should clearly understand that ongoing rent arrears will inevitably result in the landlord serving further recidivist rent arrears notices on the tenant which will no doubt comply with the requirements of the Act.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on the day of the hearing is $398.57.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings. The application is dismissed.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially peaceful in this hearing. The landlord's application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227692 — net $398.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$398.57	Rent arrears
Net award	$398.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$398.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited - As Agent For Sc Investments Ltd $398.57 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 June 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy under two separate grounds.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, I find the landlord has not served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The third notice dated 14 May 2025 does not inform the tenant of his right to challenge the notice.
The grounds for termination of the tenancy have not been established and the application for termination under the recidivist rent arrears provisions is dismissed.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant had breached their obligations by failing to pay rent in full and on time.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 March 2025, informing the tenant that he was in arrears for rent in the sum of $199.29, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because; The amount of rent arrears on the day of this hearing is $398.57. The tenant expressed some uncertainty of the amount, but indicated that he would be able to pay the arrears within 48 hours of the hearing and the next rent payment would be made before the end of the week. Termination of the tenancy would be a disproportionate response to the level of arrears. The application of termination is dismissed.
The appropriate application by the landlord in the circumstances in the circumstances of this case was under section 55(1)(aa) RTA. That application has been dismissed by the Tribunal as the notices served on the tenant were not valid. The tenant should clearly understand that ongoing rent arrears will inevitably result in the landlord serving further recidivist rent arrears notices on the tenant which will no doubt comply with the requirements of the Act.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on the day of the hearing is $398.57.
The landlord has applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings. The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially peaceful in this hearing. The landlord's application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227692 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227692 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions